Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
‘My take on it in the OJ case the prosecutors did a bad job so there was no conviction. It was somewhat understandable given the amount of money OJ spent on his defense. A jury often finds the simplest most non technical evidence the most persuasive. In the OJ case OJ trying on the glove and it not fitting was powerful. It was the prosecution’s mistake for letting him try on the glove.
Originally posted by: malibber2
‘My take on it in the OJ case the prosecutors did a bad job so there was no conviction. It was somewhat understandable given the amount of money OJ spent on his defense. A jury often finds the simplest most non technical evidence the most persuasive. In the OJ case OJ trying on the glove and it not fitting was powerful. It was the prosecution’s mistake for letting him try on the glove.
I remember seeing some piece somewhere on the tube about OJ's lawyer's hooking OJ up with a doc who prescribed some meds to make a him retain fluids( they do exist) and told him the morning of to try and get as much fluid into his hand as possible. By doing this his hand would've been swollen and voila, if it don't fit you must acquit. Also the glove had so much blood on it, it was bound to shrink somewhat because that's what wet leather does.
Seemed far-fetched to me at the time, but now as someone who can retain a lot fluid between dialysis I could buy into it. Fluid always goes to me ankles, when I take my socks off, it's all puffy above the sock tops. I can literally push all the fluid down in about five minutes.
I have no idea how that glove didn't fit, but it got him sprung for that one.
J
